[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by illdefined

whats the standard for a 'replacement player?' on the 2 or 3 times A MONTH that Randle El and Lloyd got the ball, did they run BACKWARDS or something? wouldn't it be about 10,000x times more likely is that it was a poorly thrown ball?

if you're going to keep spitting obscure stats to us here, you should do a better job of illustrating exactly how they work. while you're at it, you may want to forward your findings to coach Gibbs, the team, the NFL, and the NFL press.

and that last sentence? um, WHAT? :confused:

Fair enough. I pulled some blurbs from FO to explain replacement level:

Originally Posted by Football Outsiders

[W]e've determined that a replacement level player has a DVOA of roughly -13.3%.

Actually, while in general replacement level is -13.3%, technically it is different for each position depending on whether we are measuring passing, rushing, or receiving. And, of course, the real replacement player is different for each team in the NFL. (Kansas City started 2005 with Larry Johnson as the backup running back, while Houston had Vernand Morency. Big difference there.) No starter can be blamed for the poor performance of his backup, so we create a general replacement level for use across the league.

The idea of replacement level says that when a regular player gets injured, he isn’t usually replaced by an average player; all the average players are starting for other teams. He gets replaced by a replacement level player. In baseball, that’s a minor leaguer or bench scrub; in football, that’s a backup quarterback riding the bench, or a free agent some other team dropped in preseason, or a fourth receiver who suddenly finds himself playing opposite Randy Moss.

So now, an average player who can be used repeatedly — thus opening up other parts of the offense and gaining yards on a regular basis — becomes more valuable. Because if you lose him, you aren’t replacing him with a similar player. You’re replacing him with a significantly worse player.

[O]ur best approximation is that a team made up entirely of replacement-level players would be outscored 407 to 260, finishing with a 4-12 record. Conveniently, this is close to the average record of the last four expansion teams.

The last sententce says, quite obviously, that any hope or morale lost this season was lost due to losing, and losing alone. Morale doesn't have to be measured because it's a simple concept. You win, people are happy. You lose, people aren't.